A Two-Year Review of Cocaine Findings in Impaired Driving Investigations in Ontario, Canada.

Drug impaired driving is an increasing public safety concern across Canada, particularly due to the demonstrated increase in use of recreational drugs such as cocaine. Cocaine is a central nervous system stimulant drug; however, it can impair an individual's driving ability in both the stimulant and crash phases. Despite the scientific consensus regarding cocaine's potential for driving impairment, there is relatively little information available regarding blood concentrations and associated observations of impairment in suspected impaired drivers. Retrospective data analysis was performed to evaluate suspected impaired driving cases in which cocaine and/or benzoylecgonine were detected alone, or in combination with other drugs, in blood and urine samples submitted to the Toxicology Section of the Centre of Forensic Sciences with incident dates between 2021 and 2022. Cocaine and/or benzoylecgonine were detected in 46% (blood) and 66% (urine) of the total impaired driving samples submitted. In 41 cases where cocaine and/or benzoylecgonine were the only drug finding in blood, concentrations of cocaine and benzoylecgonine ranged from 0.0073 to 0.26 mg/L (mean 0.096 mg/L) and 0.13 to 5.3 mg/L (mean 2.1 mg/L) respectively. Driving observations reported by the arresting officer in cases where cocaine and/or benzoylecgonine were the only drug finding in blood and urine included the driver being involved in a collision, the vehicle leaving the roadway, erratic driving and the driver being asleep at the wheel; observations of drug impairment reported by the drug recognition expert (DRE) at the time of driver evaluation included abnormal speech patterns, poor balance/incoordination, abnormal body movements and the individual falling asleep. The results provide concentrations of cocaine and benzoylecgonine observed in suspected impaired drivers, insight into observations that may be associated with prior cocaine use and additional information to inform on the effects of cocaine on driving.

Extracorporeal treatment for ethylene glycol poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup.

Ethylene glycol (EG) is metabolized into glycolate and oxalate and may cause metabolic acidemia, neurotoxicity, acute kidney injury (AKI), and death. Historically, treatment of EG toxicity included supportive care, correction of acid-base disturbances and antidotes (ethanol or fomepizole), and extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs), such as hemodialysis. With the wider availability of fomepizole, the indications for ECTRs in EG poisoning are debated. We conducted systematic reviews of the literature following published EXTRIP methods to determine the utility of ECTRs in the management of EG toxicity. The quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations, either strong ("we recommend") or weak/conditional ("we suggest"), were graded according to the GRADE approach. A total of 226 articles met inclusion criteria. EG was assessed as dialyzable by intermittent hemodialysis (level of evidence = B) as was glycolate (Level of evidence = C). Clinical data were available for analysis on 446 patients, in whom overall mortality was 18.7%. In the subgroup of patients with a glycolate concentration ≤ 12 mmol/L (or anion gap ≤ 28 mmol/L), mortality was 3.6%; in this subgroup, outcomes in patients receiving ECTR were not better than in those who did not receive ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup made the following recommendations for the use of ECTR in addition to supportive care over supportive care alone in the management of EG poisoning (very low quality of evidence for all recommendations): i) Suggest ECTR if fomepizole is used and EG concentration > 50 mmol/L OR osmol gap > 50; or ii) Recommend ECTR if ethanol is used and EG concentration > 50 mmol/L OR osmol gap > 50; or iii) Recommend ECTR if glycolate concentration is > 12 mmol/L or anion gap > 27 mmol/L; or iv) Suggest ECTR if glycolate concentration 8-12 mmol/L or anion gap 23-27 mmol/L; or v) Recommend ECTR if there are severe clinical features (coma, seizures, or AKI). In most settings, the workgroup recommends using intermittent hemodialysis over other ECTRs. If intermittent hemodialysis is not available, CKRT is recommended over other types of ECTR. Cessation of ECTR is recommended once the anion gap is < 18 mmol/L or suggested if EG concentration is < 4 mmol/L. The dosage of antidotes (fomepizole or ethanol) needs to be adjusted during ECTR.

Retrospective evaluation of management guidelines for extracorporeal treatment of metformin poisoning.

INTRODUCTION: The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) Workgroup defined criteria for extracorporeal toxin removal in patients with metformin poisoning. The primary objective of this study was to determine the benefit of extracorporeal toxin removal in patients meeting EXTRIP criteria. The secondary objective was to determine the performance characteristics of the EXTRIP criteria. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective analysis of metformin poisoned patients. Inclusion criteria were: suspicion of metformin poisoning with at least one of the following present: lactate concentration >5 mmol/L; pH < 7.35; or impaired kidney function. Patient data were extracted by reviewers who were unaware of the study hypothesis. Cases were analyzed based on EXTRIP criteria, whether extracorporeal toxin removal was performed, and survival. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value were calculated with respect to the EXTRIP criteria and survival. RESULTS: Of 201 patients studied, 145 patients met recommended EXTRIP criteria (EXTRIP positive) and 56 patients did not (EXTRIP negative). Among patients who met recommended EXTRIP criteria, 96 received extracorporeal toxin removal and 49 did not. There was no difference in survival between these groups: 75.0% versus 73.5%, respectively (P >0.05). All 56 patients who did not meet EXTRIP criteria, survived (negative predictive value = 100%). DISCUSSION: The study did not demonstrate a survival benefit for extracorporeal toxin removal in those meeting EXTRIP criteria. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective analysis, the recommended EXTRIP criteria had a negative predictive value for death of 100%. Further study is needed to evaluate the benefit of extracorporeal toxin removal in patients meeting EXTRIP criteria for metformin poisoning.

A retrospective study comparing postoperative opioid prescribing practices in an academic medical centre.

Background: In the midst of the North American opioid crisis, identifying and intervening on drivers of high-risk opioid prescriptions is an important step towards reducing iatrogenic harm. Objectives: We aimed to identify factors associated with variations in high-risk opioid discharge prescriptions, following select surgical procedures, to guide future quality improvement initiatives. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 1322 patients who underwent select open pelvic and open abdominal surgeries between January 1 and December 31, 2017, in a tertiary health care centre in Montreal. Results: Patients who underwent open abdominal surgeries were prescribed significantly higher daily doses of morphine milligram equivalents (MME) (45 mg; interquartile range, 30-60), than patients who underwent either a caesarean delivery (20 mg, 20-20) or a hysterectomy (30 mg, 22-30). After adjustment for multiple potential confounders, abdominal surgery was associated with 4 times the odds of receiving more than 50 MME at hospital discharge compared with pelvic surgeries (odds ratio, 3.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-11.97). The availability of postoperative preprinted order sets with fixed high doses of opioids was also highly associated with the outcome. Conclusion: In our institution, some surgeries were more likely to receive high-risk opioid prescriptions at discharge. Efforts to optimize safer prescribing practices should address the creation and/or updating of preprinted order sets to reflect current best practice guidelines. This initiative could be overseen by hospital pharmacy and therapeutics committees.

The Management of Agitated Toxidromes.

Taking care of patients with agitated toxidromes can be challenging. While many will be able to be discharged from the emergency department or transferred to psychiatry following brief and simple interventions others will have life-threatening toxicity. Health care providers must develop an organized approach to the assessment and management of these patients that includes foremost the protection of the patient and staff from physical harm, prompt pharmacologic control to allow rapid assessment for life-threatening abnormalities such as hypoglycemia and hyperthermia and optimal cooling of patients with extreme temperature elevations.

Extracorporeal Treatment for Methotrexate Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations from the EXTRIP Workgroup.

Methotrexate is used in the treatment of many malignancies, rheumatological diseases, and inflammatory bowel disease. Toxicity from use is associated with severe morbidity and mortality. Rescue treatments include intravenous hydration, folinic acid, and, in some centers, glucarpidase. We conducted systematic reviews of the literature following published EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) methods to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments in the management of methotrexate toxicity. The quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations (either "strong" or "weak/conditional") were graded according to the GRADE approach. A formal voting process using a modified Delphi method assessed the level of agreement between panelists on the final recommendations. A total of 92 articles met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic data were available on 90 patients (89 with impaired kidney function). Methotrexate was considered to be moderately dialyzable by intermittent hemodialysis. Data were available for clinical analysis on 109 patients (high-dose methotrexate [>0.5 g/m2]: 91 patients; low-dose [≤0.5 g/m2]: 18). Overall mortality in these publications was 19.5% and 26.7% in those with high-dose and low-dose methotrexate-related toxicity, respectively. Although one observational study reported lower mortality in patients treated with glucarpidase compared with those treated with hemodialysis, there were important limitations in the study. For patients with severe methotrexate toxicity receiving standard care, the EXTRIP workgroup: (1) suggested against extracorporeal treatments when glucarpidase is not administered; (2) recommended against extracorporeal treatments when glucarpidase is administered; and (3) recommended against extracorporeal treatments instead of administering glucarpidase. The quality of evidence for these recommendations was very low. Rationales for these recommendations included: (1) extracorporeal treatments mainly remove drugs in the intravascular compartment, whereas methotrexate rapidly distributes into cells; (2) extracorporeal treatments remove folinic acid; (3) in rare cases where fast removal of methotrexate is required, glucarpidase will outperform any extracorporeal treatment; and (4) extracorporeal treatments do not appear to reduce the incidence and magnitude of methotrexate toxicity.

Treating ethylene glycol poisoning with alcohol dehydrogenase inhibition, but without extracorporeal treatments: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Ethylene glycol is metabolized to toxic metabolites that cause acute kidney injury, metabolic acidemia, and death. The treatment of patients with ethylene glycol poisoning includes competitively inhibiting alcohol dehydrogenase with ethanol or fomepizole to prevent the formation of toxic metabolites, and extracorporeal treatments such as hemodialysis to remove ethylene glycol and its metabolites. In the absence of significant metabolic acidemia or kidney injury, it is hypothesized that extracorporeal treatments may be obviated without adverse outcomes to the patient if alcohol dehydrogenase inhibitors are used. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to: (1) identify indicators predicting ADH inhibitor failure in patients with ethylene glycol poisoning treated with either ethanol or fomepizole for whom extracorporeal treatment was not performed (aside from rescue therapy, see below) (prognostic study), and (2) validate if the anion gap, shown in a previous study to be the best surrogate for the glycolate concentration, is associated with acute kidney injury and mortality (anion gap study). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify all reported patients with ethylene glycol poisoning treated without extracorporeal treatments but with either fomepizole (fomepizole monotherapy) or ethanol (ethanol monotherapy). Analyses were performed using both one case per patient and all cases (if multiple events were reported for a single patient). Data were compiled regarding poisoning, biochemistry, and outcomes. Treatment failure was defined as mortality, worsening of acid-base status, extracorporeal treatments used as rescue, or a worsening of kidney or neurological function after alcohol dehydrogenase inhibition was initiated. Also, we performed an analysis of previously described anion gap thresholds to determine if they were associated with outcomes such as acute kidney injury and mortality. RESULTS: Of 115 publications identified, 96 contained case-level data. A total of 180 cases were identified with ethanol monotherapy, and 231 with fomepizole monotherapy. Therapy failure was noted mostly when marked acidemia and/or acute kidney injury were present prior to therapy, although there were cases of failed ethanol monotherapy with minimal acidemia (suggesting that ethanol dosing and/or monitoring may not have been optimal). Ethylene glycol dose and ethylene glycol concentration were predictive of monotherapy failure for ethanol, but not for fomepizole. In the anion gap study (207 cases), death and progression of acute kidney injury were almost nonexistent when the anion gap was less than 24 mmol/L and mostly observed when the anion gap was greater than 28 mmol/L. CONCLUSION: This review suggests that in patients with minimal metabolic acidemia (anion gap <28 mmol/L), fomepizole monotherapy without extracorporeal treatments is safe and effective regardless of the ethylene glycol concentration. Treatment failures were observed with ethanol monotherapy which may relate to transient subtherapeutic ethanol concentrations or very high ethylene glycol concentrations. The results are limited by the retrospective nature of the case reports and series reviewed in this study and require prospective validation.

Extracorporeal Treatment for Gabapentin and Pregabalin Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations From the EXTRIP Workgroup.

Toxicity from gabapentin and pregabalin overdose is commonly encountered. Treatment is supportive, and the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) is controversial. The EXTRIP workgroup conducted systematic reviews of the literature and summarized findings following published methods. Thirty-three articles (30 patient reports and 3 pharmacokinetic studies) met the inclusion criteria. High gabapentinoid extracorporeal clearance (>150mL/min) and short elimination half-life (<5 hours) were reported with hemodialysis. The workgroup assessed gabapentin and pregabalin as "dialyzable" for patients with decreased kidney function (quality of the evidence grade as A and B, respectively). Limited clinical data were available (24 patients with gabapentin toxicity and 7 with pregabalin toxicity received ECTR). Severe toxicity, mortality, and sequelae were rare in cases receiving ECTR and in historical controls receiving standard care alone. No clear clinical benefit from ECTR could be identified although major knowledge gaps were acknowledged, as well as costs and harms of ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup suggests against performing ECTR in addition to standard care rather than standard care alone (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence) for gabapentinoid poisoning in patients with normal kidney function. If decreased kidney function and coma requiring mechanical ventilation are present, the workgroup suggests performing ECTR in addition to standard care (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).

Association between fentanyl treatment for acute pain in the emergency department and opioid use two weeks after discharge.

BACKGROUND: Analgesia with fentanyl can be associated with hyperalgesia (higher sensitivity to pain) and can contribute to escalating opioid use. Our objective was to assess the relationship between emergency department (ED) acute pain management with fentanyl compared to other opioids, and the quantity of opioids consumed two-week after discharge. We hypothesized that the quantity of opioids consumed would be higher for patients treated with fentanyl compared to those treated with other opioids. METHODS: Patients were selected from two prospective cohorts assessing opioids consumed after ED discharge. Patients ≥18 years treated with an opioid in the ED for an acute pain condition (≤2 weeks) and discharged with an opioid prescription were included. Patients completed a 14-day paper or electronic diary of pain medication use. Quantity of 5 mg morphine equivalent tablets consumed during a 14-day follow-up by patients treated with fentanyl compared to those treated with other opioids during their ED stay were analyzed using a multiple linear regression and propensity scores. RESULTS: We included 707 patients (mean age ± SD: 50 ± 15 years, 47% women) in this study. During follow-up, patients treated with fentanyl (N = 91) during their ED stay consumed a median (IQR) of 5.8 (14) 5 mg morphine equivalent pills compared to 7.0 (14) for those treated with other opioids (p = 0.05). Results were similar using propensity score sensitivity analysis. However, after adjusting for confounding variables, ED fentanyl treatment showed a trend, but not a statistically significant association with a decreased opioid consumption during the 14-day follow-up (B = -2.4; 95%CI = -5.3 to 0.4; p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with fentanyl during ED stay did not consume more opioids after ED discharge, compared to those treated with other opioids. If fentanyl does cause more hyperalgesia compared to other opioids, it does not seem to have a significant impact on opioid consumption after ED discharge.

Systematic review on the use of activated charcoal for gastrointestinal decontamination following acute oral overdose.

INTRODUCTION: The use of activated charcoal in poisoning remains both a pillar of modern toxicology and a source of debate. Following the publication of the joint position statements on the use of single-dose and multiple-dose activated charcoal by the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology and the European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists, the routine use of activated charcoal declined. Over subsequent years, many new pharmaceuticals became available in modified or alternative-release formulations and additional data on gastric emptying time in poisoning was published, challenging previous assumptions about absorption kinetics. The American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, the European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists and the Asia Pacific Association of Medical Toxicology founded the Clinical Toxicology Recommendations Collaborative to create a framework for evidence-based recommendations for the management of poisoned patients. The activated charcoal workgroup of the Clinical Toxicology Recommendations Collaborative was tasked with reviewing systematically the evidence pertaining to the use of activated charcoal in poisoning in order to update the previous recommendations. OBJECTIVES: The main objective was: Does oral activated charcoal given to adults or children prevent toxicity or improve clinical outcome and survival of poisoned patients compared to those who do not receive charcoal?  Secondary objectives were to evaluate pharmacokinetic outcomes, the role of cathartics, and adverse events to charcoal administration. This systematic review summarizes the available evidence on the efficacy of activated charcoal. METHODS: A medical librarian created a systematic search strategy for Medline (Ovid), subsequently translated for Embase (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), BIOSIS Previews (via Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library/DARE. All databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2019. There were no language limitations.  One author screened all citations identified in the search based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Excluded citations were confirmed by an additional author and remaining articles were obtained in full text and evaluated by at least two authors for inclusion. All authors cross-referenced full-text articles to identify articles missed in the searches. Data from included articles were extracted by the authors on a standardized spreadsheet and two authors used the GRADE methodology to independently assess the quality and risk of bias of each included study. RESULTS: From 22,950 titles originally identified, the final data set consisted of 296 human studies, 118 animal studies, and 145 in vitro studies. Also included were 71 human and two animal studies that reported adverse events. The quality was judged to have a Low or Very Low GRADE in 469 (83%) of the studies. Ninety studies were judged to be of Moderate or High GRADE. The higher GRADE studies reported on the following drugs: paracetamol (acetaminophen), phenobarbital, carbamazepine, cardiac glycosides (digoxin and oleander), ethanol, iron, salicylates, theophylline, tricyclic antidepressants, and valproate. Data on newer pharmaceuticals not reviewed in the previous American Academy of Clinical Toxicology/European Association of Poison Centres and Clinical Toxicologists statements such as quetiapine, olanzapine, citalopram, and Factor Xa inhibitors were included. No studies on the optimal dosing for either single-dose or multiple-dose activated charcoal were found. In the reviewed clinical data, the time of administration of the first dose of charcoal was beyond one hour in 97% (n = 1006 individuals), beyond two hours in 36% (n = 491 individuals), and beyond 12 h in 4% (n = 43 individuals) whereas the timing of the first dose in controlled studies was within one hour of ingestion in 48% (n = 2359 individuals) and beyond two hours in 36% (n = 484) of individuals. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found heterogenous data. The higher GRADE data was focused on a few select poisonings, while studies that addressed patients with unknown and or mixed ingestions were hampered by low rates of clinically meaningful toxicity or death.  Despite these limitations, they reported a benefit of activated charcoal beyond one hour in many clinical scenarios.

Recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup on extracorporeal treatment for baclofen poisoning.

Baclofen toxicity results from intentional self-poisoning (acute baclofen poisoning) or accumulation of therapeutic dose in the setting of impaired kidney function. Standard care includes baclofen discontinuation, respiratory support and seizure treatment. Use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) is controversial. To clarify this, a comprehensive review of the literature on the effect of ECTRs in baclofen toxicity was performed and recommendations following EXTRIP methods were formulated based on 43 studies (1 comparative cohort, 1 aggregate results cohort, 1 pharmacokinetic modeling, and 40 patient reports or series). Toxicokinetic data were available for 20 patients. Baclofen's dialyzability is limited by a high endogenous clearance and a short half-life in patients with normal kidney function. The workgroup assessed baclofen as "Moderately dialyzable" by intermittent hemodialysis for patients with normal kidney function (quality of evidence C) and "Dialyzable" for patients with impaired kidney function (quality of evidence C). Clinical data were available for 25 patients with acute baclofen poisoning and 46 patients with toxicity from therapeutic baclofen in kidney impairment. No deaths or sequelae were reported. Mortality in historical controls was rare. No benefit of ECTR was identified in patients with acute baclofen poisoning. Indirect evidence suggests a benefit of ECTR in reducing the duration of toxic encephalopathy from therapeutic baclofen in kidney impairment. These potential benefits were balanced against added costs and harms related to the insertion of a catheter, the procedure itself, and the potential of baclofen withdrawal. Thus, the EXTRIP workgroup suggests against performing ECTR in addition to standard care for acute baclofen poisoning and suggests performing ECTR in toxicity from therapeutic baclofen in kidney impairment, especially in the presence of coma requiring mechanical ventilation.

RAFF-3 Trial: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomised Trial to Improve Care of Acute Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: We sought to improve care of patients with acute atrial fibrillation (AF) and flutter (AFL) in the emergency department (ED) by implementing the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) Acute AF/AFL Best Practices Checklist. METHODS: We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial at 11 large community and academic hospital EDs in 5 Canadian provinces and enrolled consecutive AF/AFL patients. The study intervention was introduction of the CAEP Checklist with the use of a knowledge translation-implementation approach that included behaviour change techniques and organisation/system-level strategies. The primary outcome was length of stay in ED, and secondary outcomes were discharge home, use of rhythm control, adverse events, and 30-day status. Analysis used mixed-effects regression adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Patient visits in the control (n = 314) and intervention (n = 404) periods were similar with mean age 62.9 years, 54% male, 71% onset < 12 hours, and 86% AF, 14% AFL. We observed a reduction in length of stay of 20.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.5%-33.8%; P = 0.01), an increase in use of rhythm control (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 4.5, 95% CI 1.8-11.6; P = 0.002), and a decrease in use of rate-control medications (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-0.9; P = 0.02). There was no change in adverse events and no strokes or deaths by 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: The RAFF-3 trial led to optimised care of AF/AFL patients with decreased ED lengths of stay, increased ED rhythm control by drug or electricity, and no increase in adverse events. Early cardioversion allows AF/AFL patients to quickly resume normal activities.

Extracorporeal treatment for poisoning to beta-adrenergic antagonists: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup.

BACKGROUND: ß-adrenergic antagonists (BAAs) are used to treat cardiovascular disease such as ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmias, and hypertension. Poisoning from BAAs can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. We aimed to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in BAAs poisoning. METHODS: We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, and summarized findings following published EXTRIP methods. RESULTS: A total of 76 studies (4 in vitro and 2 animal experiments, 1 pharmacokinetic simulation study, 37 pharmacokinetic studies on patients with end-stage kidney disease, and 32 case reports or case series) met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic data were available on 334 patients (including 73 for atenolol, 54 for propranolol, and 17 for sotalol). For intermittent hemodialysis, atenolol, nadolol, practolol, and sotalol were assessed as dialyzable; acebutolol, bisoprolol, and metipranolol were assessed as moderately dialyzable; metoprolol and talinolol were considered slightly dialyzable; and betaxolol, carvedilol, labetalol, mepindolol, propranolol, and timolol were considered not dialyzable. Data were available for clinical analysis on 37 BAA poisoned patients (including 9 patients for atenolol, 9 for propranolol, and 9 for sotalol), and no reliable comparison between the ECTR cohort and historical controls treated with standard care alone could be performed. The EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using ECTR for patients severely poisoned with propranolol (strong recommendation, very low quality evidence). The workgroup offered no recommendation for ECTR in patients severely poisoned with atenolol or sotalol because of apparent balance of risks and benefits, except for impaired kidney function in which ECTR is suggested (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence). Indications for ECTR in patients with impaired kidney function include refractory bradycardia and hypotension for atenolol or sotalol poisoning, and recurrent torsade de pointes for sotalol. Although other BAAs were considered dialyzable, clinical data were too limited to develop recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: BAAs have different properties affecting their removal by ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup assessed propranolol as non-dialyzable. Atenolol and sotalol were assessed as dialyzable in patients with kidney impairment, and the workgroup suggests ECTR in patients severely poisoned with these drugs when aforementioned indications are present.

Comparison of the EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) and Paris criteria for neurotoxicity in lithium poisoned patients.

AIMS: Two guidelines for haemodialysis in lithium poisoning, one from the Extracorporeal TReatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup and a single centre retrospective one (Paris) differ. We compared outcomes in lithium poisoning based on these criteria with a primary outcome of worsening neurological symptoms in patients for whom EXTRIP and Paris criteria were discordant. METHODS: Poison centre data were queried for lithium poisoned patients for whom haemodialysis was either recommended or performed. Patients were categorized according to EXTRIP and Paris criteria and excluded if the peak lithium concentration was <1.2 mmol/L or if neurological follow-up was unavailable. Comparative analyses were only performed when both criteria could be assessed. RESULTS: In total, 219 patients were analysed. Paris criteria were met in 70 and EXTRIP criteria in 178. Forty two patients were excluded because Paris criteria could not be evaluated. When Paris and EXTRIP both supported haemodialysis, 50/57 (88%) of patients who received haemodialysis improved, as did all 3 who did not receive haemodialysis. When Paris and EXTRIP did not support haemodialysis, all nondialysed patients did well. Among the 86 patients for whom EXTRIP supported haemodialysis but Paris did not, 4/19 (21%) patients not dialysed deteriorated (P = .02; odds ratio = 8.7, 95% confidence interval = 1.5-51.8), 1 of whom died. All 8 patients for whom Paris criteria supported haemodialysis but EXTRIP did not were dialysed and improved. CONCLUSIONS: When the EXTRIP and Paris criteria are discordant, EXTRIP criteria outperforms the Paris criteria at identifying potentially ill patients who might benefit from haemodialysis.

Extracorporeal treatments for isoniazid poisoning: Systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup.

Isoniazid toxicity from self-poisoning or dosing errors remains common in regions of the world where tuberculosis is prevalent. Although the treatment of isoniazid poisoning is centered on supportive care and pyridoxine administration, extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs), such as hemodialysis, have been advocated to enhance elimination of isoniazid. No systematic reviews or evidence-based recommendations currently exist on the benefit of ECTRs for isoniazid poisoning. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup systematically collected and rated the available evidence on the effect of and indications for ECTRs in cases of isoniazid poisoning. We conducted a systematic review of the literature, screened studies, extracted data on study characteristics, outcomes, and measurement characteristics, summarized findings, and formulated recommendations following published EXTRIP methods. Forty-three studies (two animal studies, 34 patient reports or patient series, and seven pharmacokinetic studies) met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic analysis was available for 60 patients, most treated with hemodialysis (n = 38). The workgroup assessed isoniazid as "Moderately Dialyzable" by hemodialysis for patients with normal kidney function (quality of evidence = C) and "Dialyzable" by hemodialysis for patients with impaired kidney function (quality of evidence = A). Clinical data for ECTR in isoniazid poisoning were available for 40 patients. Mortality of the cohort was 12.5%. Historical controls who received modern standard care including appropriately dosed pyridoxine generally had excellent outcomes. No benefit could be extrapolated from ECTR, although there was evidence of added costs and harms related to the double lumen catheter insertion, the extracorporeal procedure itself, and the extracorporeal removal of pyridoxine. The EXTRIP workgroup suggests against performing ECTR in addition to standard care (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence) in patients with isoniazid poisoning. If standard dose pyridoxine cannot be administered, we suggest performing ECTR only in patients with seizures refractory to GABAA receptor agonists (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).